MMORPG.com Discussion Forums

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

And yet WOW has millions of players playing a lot more than that left. So there a big hole in your theory. FFXIV has already been dumbed down and is redesigned to be more in line with traditional MMOS. The only reason original version tanked was because it was not like WOW, RIFT and other MMOS.

In the end it is business. If they have large enough playerbase to supprt them they won't go F2P.

And yet you fail to understand this...

It doesnt matter if wow have 1000 bilion subs.. Those who left are now looking for something else than wow is, thats why the left. Soo .. let players who love wow keep playing wow or wow copies mkay??

Btw ARR didnt copy wow, rift, gw. It just took some of its good features, applyed it to the arr world..

but as you said .. lets just hope ARR will be sucess and thats all what matters right? :)

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Short and simple for me. I play both sub-based and f2p games. The f2p games I like, I wind up subbing to and buying stuff in the cs. I'm going to quit that habit and stay with my sub only games because the f2p games wind up costing me a lot more.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by PWN_FACEShort and simple for me. I play both sub-based and f2p games. The f2p games I like, I wind up subbing to and buying stuff in the cs. I'm going to quit that habit and stay with my sub only games because the f2p games wind up costing me a lot more.

See the problem with the F2P community do not lie with the people with this mentality but rather the majority of them. That look to mooch and freeload, then cry and complain about the limitations that are set forth for people who don't subscribe. And how they should have the same access to the game with their free account. Usually they will turn their arguments to well I would spend money on costumes or mounts in a cash shop, that don't actually effect gameplay.

Let's be real. If people are willing to spend real money on virtual vanity items. Why in hell do they have a problem with spending real money on having total access to the game?

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by cybertrucker

Originally posted by PWN_FACEShort and simple for me. I play both sub-based and f2p games. The f2p games I like, I wind up subbing to and buying stuff in the cs. I'm going to quit that habit and stay with my sub only games because the f2p games wind up costing me a lot more.

See the problem with the F2P community do not lie with the people with this mentality but rather the majority of them. That look to mooch and freeload, then cry and complain about the limitations that are set forth for people who don't subscribe. And how they should have the same access to the game with their free account. Usually they will turn their arguments to well I would spend money on costumes or mounts in a cash shop, that don't actually effect gameplay.

Let's be real. If people are willing to spend real money on virtual vanity items. Why in hell do they have a problem with spending real money on having total access to the game?

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Cod_Eye

Originally posted by cybertrucker

Originally posted by PWN_FACEShort and simple for me. I play both sub-based and f2p games. The f2p games I like, I wind up subbing to and buying stuff in the cs. I'm going to quit that habit and stay with my sub only games because the f2p games wind up costing me a lot more.

See the problem with the F2P community do not lie with the people with this mentality but rather the majority of them. That look to mooch and freeload, then cry and complain about the limitations that are set forth for people who don't subscribe. And how they should have the same access to the game with their free account. Usually they will turn their arguments to well I would spend money on costumes or mounts in a cash shop, that don't actually effect gameplay.

Let's be real. If people are willing to spend real money on virtual vanity items. Why in hell do they have a problem with spending real money on having total access to the game?

That has always boggled me and is a very valid argument.

Freedom of choice is the answer. When a game is B2P or F2P, you can choose to then spend additional funds on vanity items (to support the game/developers). You can also choose to not play the game and not feel like you're wasting money due to not logging in. Taking a break from the game, for whatever reason, also boils down to a simple choice of not logging in. You also have the option of not spending another dime on the game after initial purchase for B2P, or at all in F2P. You have more personal control over how your money is allocated towards support for the game.

If you want a more real world example. The difference between playing a sub and B2P/F2P can be fairly dramatic in the minds of people. Let's say you're an accountant and are in your busy season. You may only be able to log into the game of your choice a few hours a month. Even though you can easily afford the $15 for access, it feels like wasted money since you're not able to play as much. So, you cancel your sub for the month or two that you're extremely busy. During that period you can't play at all. However, in the same situation for a non-sub game, well it doesn't matter. You can log in whenever you can and not feel like you're money is wasted.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

I cant bring myself to pay money for a game that failed 3 years ago. Trials never let you play long enough to know if the game is good. So unless they change how they will make money on this game, I will pass.

Report this post

No, it's inherently a good thing a game could do. It's just not been done successfuly.

I think theres a much better chance of success if rather than trying to please everyone with one option, multiple options are made available for everyone.

Every smart and experienced company owner / manager / marketer know that segmentations and they SHOULDNT EVER try to satisfy every customer.

If you try to cater to every possible segment on the market, you are doomed to fail. Thats how it is and wont ever change.

Just think for a moment and you can clearly see that EVERY product is always aimed for certain people/segment.

Everyone eats at kfc at one point in their lives, even vegans... your arguments are as shoddy as your grammar and your passion for keeping out "undesirables" is almost... well to be honest bordering on damn nazism and while I can't stand most of the people you likely can't either what I can't stand the most is entitled people telling everyone else how it is... when it isn't even close to the truth. If ARR was worth its salt it would have revamped itself in such a way that it could allow F2P and allow you to "welcome" the people you like so much with all the jackbooty love your heart desires.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Dogblaster

And yet WOW has millions of players playing a lot more than that left. So there a big hole in your theory. FFXIV has already been dumbed down and is redesigned to be more in line with traditional MMOS. The only reason original version tanked was because it was not like WOW, RIFT and other MMOS.

In the end it is business. If they have large enough playerbase to supprt them they won't go F2P.

And yet you fail to understand this...

It doesnt matter if wow have 1000 bilion subs.. Those who left are now looking for something else than wow is, thats why the left. Soo .. let players who love wow keep playing wow or wow copies mkay??

Btw ARR didnt copy wow, rift, gw. It just took some of its good features, applyed it to the arr world..

but as you said .. lets just hope ARR will be sucess and thats all what matters right? :)

DUh!!! I never said it copied WOW or RIFT. I said it has been redesigned to be more in line with traditional MMO playstyle. Where do you think WOW and Rift got its features from?

And you are the one who brought how many players left or stayed in WOW. I mentioned these two MMOS as an example that if players support the game, P2P model is still viable but as it stands right now there are only handful of MMOS which can survive on this model..

Now whether REBORN will be able to stay afloat as P2P or will fail and take route of other F2P model. That is something only time will tell because i don't have crystal ball to tell the future.

But just to indulge your abusrd views that people who left WOW are looking for something like reborn, i heard similar nonsense back when FFXIV released. Sadly there were not enough of WOW exile to support the game back then . If what you are saying is true i wonder why firts version tanked so bad.

"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'-Jesse Schell

"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."-Luke McKinney

Report this post

No, it's inherently a good thing a game could do. It's just not been done successfuly.

I think theres a much better chance of success if rather than trying to please everyone with one option, multiple options are made available for everyone.

Every smart and experienced company owner / manager / marketer know that segmentations and they SHOULDNT EVER try to satisfy every customer.

If you try to cater to every possible segment on the market, you are doomed to fail. Thats how it is and wont ever change.

Just think for a moment and you can clearly see that EVERY product is always aimed for certain people/segment.

Everyone eats at kfc at one point in their lives, even vegans... your arguments are as shoddy as your grammar and your passion for keeping out "undesirables" is almost... well to be honest bordering on damn nazism and while I can't stand most of the people you likely can't either what I can't stand the most is entitled people telling everyone else how it is... when it isn't even close to the truth. If ARR was worth its salt it would have revamped itself in such a way that it could allow F2P and allow you to "welcome" the people you like so much with all the jackbooty love your heart desires.

The Godwin monster has been summoned. Prepare for battle.

Also, do you have any proof that *everyone* has eaten at KFC?

Do you or Dogblaster have any proof "If you try to cater to every possible segment on the market, you are doomed to fail. Thats how it is and wont ever change." ? Until such a time as proof positive of that statement has been given (not proof as in a few cases, undeniable proof of factual validity in a majority of cases) the burden of proof isn't on me ^^ I merely stated something view as truth in my own opinion though I will rephrase to better state that truth: Everyone with financial means and access to a KFC has at one point eaten something purchased from there (be it a full meal or just some fries or used some sauce from there).

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by NanfoodleI cant bring myself to pay money for a game that failed 3 years ago. Trials never let you play long enough to know if the game is good. So unless they change how they will make money on this game, I will pass.

Understandable, however it can hardly be even considered the same game. It doesnt even use the same engine.

No, it's inherently a good thing a game could do. It's just not been done successfuly.

I think theres a much better chance of success if rather than trying to please everyone with one option, multiple options are made available for everyone.

Every smart and experienced company owner / manager / marketer know that segmentations and they SHOULDNT EVER try to satisfy every customer.

If you try to cater to every possible segment on the market, you are doomed to fail. Thats how it is and wont ever change.

Just think for a moment and you can clearly see that EVERY product is always aimed for certain people/segment.

Everyone eats at kfc at one point in their lives, even vegans... your arguments are as shoddy as your grammar and your passion for keeping out "undesirables" is almost... well to be honest bordering on damn nazism and while I can't stand most of the people you likely can't either what I can't stand the most is entitled people telling everyone else how it is... when it isn't even close to the truth. If ARR was worth its salt it would have revamped itself in such a way that it could allow F2P and allow you to "welcome" the people you like so much with all the jackbooty love your heart desires.

The Godwin monster has been summoned. Prepare for battle.

Also, do you have any proof that *everyone* has eaten at KFC?

Do you or Dogblaster have any proof "If you try to cater to every possible segment on the market, you are doomed to fail. Thats how it is and wont ever change." ? Until such a time as proof positive of that statement has been given (not proof as in a few cases, undeniable proof of factual validity in a majority of cases) the burden of proof isn't on me ^^ I merely stated something view as truth in my own opinion though I will rephrase to better state that truth: Everyone with financial means and access to a KFC has at one point eaten something purchased from there (be it a full meal or just some fries or used some sauce from there).

I don't care about what you and that other poster were talking about. The KFC line just caught my eye as I was skimming. I'll leave "truth" to the philosophers, I'm just interested in fact.

No, it's inherently a good thing a game could do. It's just not been done successfuly.

I think theres a much better chance of success if rather than trying to please everyone with one option, multiple options are made available for everyone.

Every smart and experienced company owner / manager / marketer know that segmentations and they SHOULDNT EVER try to satisfy every customer.

If you try to cater to every possible segment on the market, you are doomed to fail. Thats how it is and wont ever change.

Just think for a moment and you can clearly see that EVERY product is always aimed for certain people/segment.

Everyone eats at kfc at one point in their lives, even vegans... your arguments are as shoddy as your grammar and your passion for keeping out "undesirables" is almost... well to be honest bordering on damn nazism and while I can't stand most of the people you likely can't either what I can't stand the most is entitled people telling everyone else how it is... when it isn't even close to the truth. If ARR was worth its salt it would have revamped itself in such a way that it could allow F2P and allow you to "welcome" the people you like so much with all the jackbooty love your heart desires.

The Godwin monster has been summoned. Prepare for battle.

Also, do you have any proof that *everyone* has eaten at KFC?

Do you or Dogblaster have any proof "If you try to cater to every possible segment on the market, you are doomed to fail. Thats how it is and wont ever change." ? Until such a time as proof positive of that statement has been given (not proof as in a few cases, undeniable proof of factual validity in a majority of cases) the burden of proof isn't on me ^^ I merely stated something view as truth in my own opinion though I will rephrase to better state that truth: Everyone with financial means and access to a KFC has at one point eaten something purchased from there (be it a full meal or just some fries or used some sauce from there).

I don't care about what you and that other poster were talking about. The KFC line just caught my eye as I was skimming. I'll leave "truth" to the philosophers, I'm just interested in fact.

Well speaking from experience no one I've met (which spreads across two countries and several large cities) has not eaten at least one item of food or garnish from KFC (it always seems to come up in conversation when talking about tastes, fast food in general I mean and then it goes towards which specific ones prefered, etc).

Report this post

I'll never understand people who advocate for a game being free on the basis of their inability to afford $15/month.

If you can't afford $15/month for an online game, I highly suggest you attack the problem from the standpoint that you can't afford $15, not the standpoint that what you want actually costs money.

I'm all sorts of happy that the basement gaming generation of yesteryears is beginning to move on in life and appreciate the value of a hard earned dollar. But lets get something clear. Your lack of purchasing power is not justification for a company to change their pricing model.

Report this post

I'll never understand people who advocate for a game being free on the basis of their inability to afford $15/month.

If you can't afford $15/month for an online game, I highly suggest you attack the problem from the standpoint that you can't afford $15, not the standpoint that what you want actually costs money.

I'm all sorts of happy that the basement gaming generation of yesteryears is beginning to move on in life and appreciate the value of a hard earned dollar. But lets get something clear. Your lack of purchasing power is not justification for a company to change their pricing model.

Report this post

The amount of people in this thread that have trouble reading (or understanding what they've read) is appalling at best.

No one has yet to say they can't afford $15 a month.

No one has yet to say they want everything an optional subscriber would get.

No one has said they want a p2w model where people who pay more money get more of an advantage.

Myself and others have on multiple occasions, explained the difference between spending money on F2P vs P2P

Yet the same points regarding these issues are brought up again and again. And some even have the gall to believe that a persons preference for a video game monetary model has some bearing on other things in their real lives.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by birdycephon

Originally posted by NanfoodleI cant bring myself to pay money for a game that failed 3 years ago. Trials never let you play long enough to know if the game is good. So unless they change how they will make money on this game, I will pass.

Understandable, however it can hardly be even considered the same game. It doesnt even use the same engine.

Still have to buy a game and pay 15 bucks a month to try and game that failed to see if its worth playing now. If it was B2P I would consider it.